Seattle Times endorses re-enfranchising ex-felons… sorta

Felons should have their right to vote restored after serving their sentences. Time in prison, not money, should be what counts. But this decision should be decided by the state, and not a judge.

Yeah, I agree, in the sense that the responsible thing for the Legislature to do would be to fix our unfair and unmanageable felon re-enfranchisement laws by bringing WA in line with most other states, and restoring civil rights to felons upon their release from prison. But, in the real world we understand that the Legislature doesn’t have the balls to touch this issue with a ten foot pole… and the Times is as much to blame for their timidity as anybody else.

For months, during last year’s gubernatorial election contest, and for some time thereafter, the Times joined the rest of the local media in eagerly playing into GOP hype over illegal felon votes without providing any context as to the relative moral and pragmatic merits of disenfranchising 3.7 percent of WA voters, and a stunning 24 percent of black men. The result is that disappointed Dino Rossi supporters have vilified felon voters as the boogiemen of the 2004 election, and would perceive any attempt to re-enfranchise them as little more than a cynical Democratic ploy to gain an electoral advantage.

Ironically, during the contest trial itself there was no convincing demographic data presented to suggest that in Washington state, ex-felons as a whole leaned towards Democrats; indeed anecdotal information suggested the opposite. So the Democratic majorities in Olympia have absolutely nothing to gain politically by sticking their necks out for a reviled, powerless constituency like ex-felons. And they won’t.

(One can just see the latest round of Kevin Carnes postcards now: “Rep. X voted to give this rapist the right to vote!”)

That’s political reality, and I’m guessing the folk on the Times editorial board were smart enough to understand this when they decided to tepidly endorse re-enfranchising ex-felons at the same time they lauded AG Rob McKenna for squashing the one sure-fire path towards achieving this commendable policy objective.

By appealing this ruling, Attorney General Rob McKenna is properly defending the right of the people of Washington to make this decision, and not have it taken away by a judge. After McKenna wins his appeal, the Legislature should exercise its power and allow all released felons to vote.

What a load of crap. What don’t you just drop the pretense and endorse McKenna now for governor or senator or whatever office it is this calculating, ambitious, cynical, BIAW mole intends to run for next?

And for chrissakes will you stop it with your incessant, whining attacks on judges for (gasp)… interpreting the law?! The “right of the people” to selectively re-enfranchisement ex-felons based on their ability to pay wasn’t “taken away by a judge”… it was taken away by the Constitution! That’s the court’s job — to interpret the state and federal constitutions — and “the people” have absolutely no right to enact laws that violate these supreme documents without first amending them.

Don’t get me wrong… I welcome the Times endorsement of ex-felon voting rights… better late than never and all that. But now that they’ve come out against the obtainable means of achieving this policy goal, I fully expect them to put the time and effort into aggressively educating the public on this issue. (You know, the way the New York Times has.)

Otherwise, one might think this lone editorial little more than a transparent effort to put Democrats between a rock and hard place… a cynical attempt to brow-beat Democrats into supporting sensible legislation with which the Republicans can beat them senseless come election time.

Share:

Related

Comments

As far as re-enfranchisement goes after a criminal serves his/her sentence, does it matter as to the nature of the crimes? Are we more comfortable giving voting rights back to minor criminals (such as those sent-up for possession of drugs) than giving voting rights back to violent felons? I’m mulling this one over, and wonder what others think. Ideas, anyone?

Yes, it does. People obviously feel more comfortable having a convicted bank robber than a convicted child molester in their neighborhood. Should it make a difference in voting rights? That argument can be made: It’s one thing to let a paroled thief to vote, another thing to let a paroled killer to vote. There is a qualitative element to most other things, why not in this as well?

The real goal of the right wing loons is overturning Marbury v. Madison. As long as they feel “the people” are in agreement with their insane politics, this is the GOP theme song. The tune was quite different in the 30’s and 40’s.

Interesting point regarding violent felons. However I would argue that violent felons and even murderers are just as capable of being rehabilitated as anyone else. Especially if there was quite clearly a mental illness. I recall reading an article several years ago that interviewed a women who killed her child because the voices in her head(?) told her to. It was moving and generally depressing, but to me it said that a violent felon can reenter ‘civil society’.

Shades of Willie Horton! It works every time. If Republicans want to play politics like that, then we should have a commercial with a guy dressed like a sheik wandering around dock looking at cargo with an evil smile on his face and the caption: “Republican Border Security…. Still feel Safer?”

Conservatives do not want people to vote, in deed, the fewer who vote the better for them. The sovereign franchise is naked power, in our Democracy even Tom Delay would have to leave if voted out of office. Having inherited the old line democrat/dixicrat defectors when the civil rights laws were passed in the ‘60’s, my Republican brothers have worked tiredly and unceasingly to use every means, fair or foul, to disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities.

Back in the day it was easy enough with poll tax and literacy tests , but those evil activists Judges on the Supremes (and the 24th Amendment) said that this was a tisk tisk and a naughty naughty. What to do?

Pass laws that would disenfranchise felons. After all, who would support a convicted criminal’s right to vote. He or she broke the law, they deserve to be punished. And to make sure it is real effective at keeping those people from voting, make it as simple a crime as looking the wrong way at a white women, or vagrancy, or some such BS. You can keep them in their place and support law and order.

Recent attempts to replace the Poll tax with mandatory voter ID’s have been shot down by those same evil activist Judges. Looking at a White Women is no longer a crime, so it looks like the forces who oppose Equality Under the Law will have to rely on their old standby, non-violent drug convictions. By selective enforcement of our Draconian drug laws in the poorest neighborhoods of America (which by sheer coincidence also have the largest minority populations. Amazing no?), we can keep up our excellent record of disenfranchising over 25% of the African American population.

“But this decision should be decided by the state, and not a judge.” “…the right of the people of Washington to make this decision, and not have it taken away by a judge.” Good God! I’m so sick of that ‘un-electedjudges‘ GOP talking point. We (Washingtonians) elect our legislature and our judges… So how the hell is it taking anything away from ‘the people’ when one of our elected judges rules that our elected legislature hasn’t done what they know needs doing? Let’s face it, holding the voting franchise hostage as a debt collection tool isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s a truly low-life move.

Actually, Wrongboy (aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy) and [Just another Chicken Hawk] are wrong, but [Just another Chicken Hawk] almost stumbled into the truth.

Al Gore first brought up the issue of giving unsupervised furloughs during the campaign. Wikipedia states (and this is my independent recollection): “there is no hard evidence such as transcripts or position papers in which Gore mentioned Horton specifically in the context of criticizing the furlough program in general:” I know Gore went after the issue at least once at a debate, and may have done so in other contexts. I do not know of any credible complaints of Al Gore using it in a racist way.

However, Bush made it a major part of his campaign, including the infamous ad with the black men going through a revolving door. Again, quoting the same Wikipedia article: “Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that ‘by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name.’ Horton had never gone by the name Willie, but rather William. [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark ‘the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.’”

So, as usual, Wrongboy and [Just another Chicken Hawk] are wrong, but, although I don’t think they actually knew it, there is some truth in what they speak.

Criticizing a prisoner furlough program on it’s merits is a long way from putting the fear of God into prospective white voters by making them imagine that slathering and drooling black murderer/rapists named “WILLIE”, for Christ’s sake, are being given weekend passes to perform further depradations against white “wimmens” — just so long as they show up in time for that Monday morning breakfast — AT TAXPAYER X-PENSE!!

[JCH] and Puddwhiteboy are 100% liars. There is no truth to what they say. They took a factual statement about a neutral criticism and now attempt to conflate it with Lee Atwater’s racist election gimmick. What happened to Atwater in the end is what God REALLY does to Southern Baptists.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.